I have made a first pass at sections 1.1 (objectives) and 1.3 (concept and approach). I have taken a risk, and I would like to invoke the experience of @sociotechnicalmike and you all to validate it or stop me while there still is (a little) time.
I propose that we say: our research focuses on using collective intelligence well, not on building tools for collective intelligence. So, our first priority is not innovation, but flawless execution. Then we will innovate: specifically, we will innovate on process (co-design by the community as a collective designer); on product (candidate hacker-produced solutions to care problems) on policy implications (careful consideration of scaling incorporating a service design approach) and on network science for collective intelligence (combining ethnography and social network analysis in a richer approach). I guess these four paths to innovation will go in the "Ambition" section. But none of that can happen if we don't execute well our convening and our participatory design phase.
I believe this will resonate with Fabrizio's idea of "no more empty platforms"; and it is consistent with the question, asked by Nadia at CAPS infoday, of whether a proposal that is "10% tech innovation and 90% test" would be well received (he replied "yes" – see the full answer). However, it is also a risk. Before moving on, I would like Mike's blessing, and any input is gratefully accepted. Please see section 1.3 in the proposal document.